Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 84 references

A symmetry-based linear combination of fixed observables, trained classically after one measurement round, predicts Ising field strength and bipartite entanglement better than variational circuits.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 07:38 UTC pith:ZF7B6WMY

load-bearing objection Clean classical post-processing of symmetry-adapted observables with variance regularization; works well on the two tasks and ships code, with the main limitation openly stated. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.02696 v1 pith:ZF7B6WMY submitted 2026-07-02 quant-ph

Parametrized-circuit-free quantum regression with variance regularization

Yerassyl Balkybek , Andrey Kardashin , Vladimir V. Palyulin , Konstantin Antipin This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantum regressionvariance regularizationpermutation operatorsentanglement negativitytransverse-field Ising modelpost-variational learningsymmetry-adapted ansatz
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Variational quantum circuits are the usual tool for predicting continuous properties of quantum states, but they require repeated parameter updates on the device and can suffer from vanishing gradients. This paper shows that the same regression tasks can be solved without any parametrized circuit. The user first chooses a fixed set of observables that already encode the problem’s known symmetries, measures their expectation values once on the training states, and then finds the optimal classical linear combination of those expectations by jointly minimizing prediction error and the variance of the combined observable. Because the quantum hardware is used only for a single round of measurements, training becomes a classical linear-algebra problem. The method is demonstrated on two concrete tasks: recovering the transverse-field strength from the ground state of an 8-qubit Ising chain, and estimating the squared negativity of two-qubit states. In both cases a carefully chosen ansatz yields high accuracy with far fewer training samples and far less quantum runtime than hardware-efficient or k-local Pauli variational models.

Core claim

Once a symmetry-adapted set of fixed observables is chosen, the optimal coefficients of their linear combination can be obtained by solving a single classical linear system that simultaneously minimizes least-squares prediction error and the variance of the combined observable; the resulting model predicts both the transverse field of an Ising ground state and the squared negativity of bipartite qubit states more accurately and with fewer resources than conventional variational circuits.

What carries the argument

The variance-regularized linear estimator H_θ = Σ θ_j G_j, whose coefficients θ are obtained by solving Aθ = b with A = (k−1)LᵀL + S_Σ and b = k Lᵀα after a single measurement of the fixed observables G_j.

Load-bearing premise

The method works only when the user already knows the relevant symmetries well enough to hand-craft a good fixed set of observables; without that knowledge it collapses to a generic Pauli expansion that overfits.

What would settle it

Train the same 10-class Hermitian permutation ansatz on pure and isotropic two-qubit states and evaluate squared-negativity predictions on a large set of random mixed states; if the mean-squared error is not substantially lower than that of a k-local Pauli or hardware-efficient variational model trained on the same data, the claimed advantage disappears.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Once a suitable ansatz is fixed, all subsequent training and incremental addition of new data become purely classical linear algebra.
  • For Ising-type Hamiltonians a truncated, symmetry-respecting 3-local Pauli ansatz of only 90 strings already yields near-quantum-Cramér-Rao variance with ten training states.
  • For bipartite entanglement a 10-class set of Hermitian permutation operators trained solely on pure and isotropic states generalizes to random mixed states, whereas generic Pauli ansätze overfit.
  • The same measurement outcomes can be re-used to estimate many related polynomial invariants (purity, realignment moments, partial-transpose moments) without additional circuits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same classical-post-processing idea should extend immediately to other multipartite entanglement monotones whose natural witnesses are permutation operators.
  • If the symmetry group of a target Hamiltonian is only partially known, twirling a short list of local operators may still produce a usable ansatz without requiring a full variational circuit.
  • Variance regularization appears to act as an implicit complexity penalty that protects against overfitting when the training set is restricted to structured states.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum regression framework that avoids parameterized quantum circuits: a fixed, symmetry-inspired set of observables is measured once on the training states, after which a classical linear combination of their expectation values is optimized by weighted least-squares plus variance regularization (Eqs. 3–15). The resulting closed-form linear system is solved by a pseudoinverse. Two demonstrations are given: (i) prediction of the transverse-field strength of an 8-qubit open Ising chain from its ground state, using a 90-term 3-local Pauli ansatz that respects spin-flip and time-reversal symmetries; (ii) prediction of squared negativity of two-qubit states from c=2–4 copies, using a 10-class Hermitian permutation-operator ansatz. Both tasks report high accuracy, low variance (near classical/quantum Cramér–Rao bounds where applicable), and better sample efficiency and generalization than generic k-local Pauli or hardware-efficient variational baselines, including the ability to train on pure/isotropic states and test on random mixed states.

Significance. If the reported accuracy and resource claims hold, the work offers a practical alternative to VQAs for quantum regression that sidesteps barren plateaus and iterative quantum optimization. Strengths that raise the contribution above a pure engineering note include: a clean derivation of the linear system with a proved positive-semidefinite Hessian (Appendix A); exact recovery of analytical solutions for pure and isotropic states (Appendix E); an incremental-learning construction that adds datasets by summing A and b matrices (Appendix C); an explicit experimental measurement protocol reducing 100 Hermitian operators to 9 parallel settings (Appendix J); and publicly released code. The dependence on a suitable ansatz G is stated openly and is not hidden. The entanglement construction, which groups permutation operators into ten physically meaningful classes (purity, realignment, linear entropy, etc.), is a concrete, reusable design pattern for LU-invariant tasks.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VI C 3, Appendix K] Sec. VI C 3 and Appendix K: The reduction of 100 independent Hermitian permutation operators to the 10-class ansatz (Eqs. 40–41, Table II) is motivated by numerical clustering of optimized coefficients θ*. While Appendix K shows that this set outperforms several alternative polynomial models and that dropping classes raises MSE on mixed states, the optimality claim remains empirical. A short argument (or counter-example) clarifying whether the ten classes span the relevant LU-invariant polynomials of degree ≤4, or at least why the omitted hermitized non-Hermitian classes (Appendix I) cannot improve the mixed-state MSE, would make the central entanglement result more robust.
  2. [Secs. V–VI, Appendix J] Secs. V–VI and comparison to VQAs: The abstract and introduction claim the method is “less resource-intensive than conventional variational methods.” The numerical evidence (10 training states for Ising; 20–100 for entanglement; seconds of classical post-processing) is persuasive for the classical stage, but the quantum measurement cost is not quantified on equal footing. Appendix J describes 9 parallel settings for the 10-class ansatz, yet no shot-budget or total circuit-depth comparison against the hardware-efficient VQA of Ref. [13] (or against classical-shadow estimation of the same observables) is given. A brief table or paragraph estimating total shots needed to reach the reported MSE would substantiate the resource claim that underpins the paper’s main selling point.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1, Figs. 3–4] Fig. 1 (right) and Figs. 3–4: the reduced-variance curves approach the classical CRB but remain visibly above the quantum CRB for most of the plotted range; a one-sentence remark on whether this gap is fundamental to the chosen ansatz or an artifact of finite w_var would help the reader.
  2. [Sec. III A, Figs. 3–4] Notation: the weight ratio is written both as k = w_ls/w_var and as ω_var in figure legends (Figs. 3–4). Unifying the symbol would avoid confusion.
  3. [Table I] Table I and the surrounding text: “Independent & Hermitized” versus “Independent & Hermitian” is slightly ambiguous on first reading; a footnote defining the hermitization map (Eq. 39) at the table would clarify.
  4. [Appendix E 2 b] Appendix E 2 b, Eq. (E21): the reduced variance is stated as N²(4−N²); a parenthetical note that this saturates the classical Fisher information for the symmetric/antisymmetric projectors would make the CRB discussion self-contained.
  5. [Throughout] Typos: “ans¨ atze” appears with inconsistent spacing; “the the observable” (captions of Figs. 3–4); “forc=2” missing space (Sec. VI C 1 heading).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: classical linear regression on fixed, symmetry-motivated observables with independent external labels.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The observable is parametrized as H_ heta = heta·G with G a fixed, problem-specific ansatz of Hermitian operators (Eq. 5); the cost (Eqs. 3–4, 11) is ordinary weighted least-squares plus variance of the measured expectations L and S (Eqs. 6–7), solved once by the linear system heta* = A^{+}b (Eqs. 14–15). The target labels heta_i (transverse field h or squared negativity N^{2}) are supplied externally and are never redefined by the fitted coefficients. For the Ising task the 90-term truncated 3-local Pauli ansatz is chosen by explicit inspection of the Hamiltonian’s locality and spin-flip/time-reversal symmetries (Sec. V); for entanglement the permutation/swap ansatz is justified by local-unitary invariance and Schur–Weyl duality (Sec. VI B, App. D), with analytic solutions for pure and isotropic states recovered by Haar integration (App. E) that match the numerical coefficients to 10^{-4}. Self-citations to the authors’ prior VQA work appear only for performance comparison, not as load-bearing premises. Training on “easy” states and testing on mixed states (Sec. VI D) is ordinary generalization, not a fitted-input-called-prediction. No step reduces the claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The method rests on standard quantum-information facts (local-unitary invariance of entanglement, spin-flip/time-reversal symmetries of the Ising Hamiltonian) plus the modeling choice that a low-locality or permutation-operator ansatz is expressive enough. The only free parameters are the relative weights of the least-squares and variance terms and the concrete truncation of the operator list; both are chosen by the authors rather than derived.

free parameters (2)
  • w_ls / w_var (or k = w_ls/w_var)
    Relative weight between least-squares loss and variance regularization; chosen by hand (typical values 10^{-4}–10^{-1}) and shown to affect accuracy–variance trade-off.
  • locality k and truncation of Pauli/permutation list
    For the Ising task k=3 and symmetry filtering yield 90 strings; for entanglement the 10 Hermitian classes are selected after numerical inspection of coefficients. Both are modeling choices, not derived.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Entanglement measures are invariant under local unitaries, so the optimal observable lies in the commutant of U^{\otimes c} (Schur–Weyl).
    Used to justify the permutation-operator ansatz (Sec. VI B and App. D).
  • domain assumption The transverse-field Ising Hamiltonian commutes with global spin flip and is real, so the ansatz may be restricted to even-Y/Z Pauli strings.
    Used to truncate the 3-local Pauli list from 1789 to 90 operators (Sec. V).
  • standard math A single copy of a bipartite state is information-theoretically insufficient for universal entanglement prediction.
    Standard result (cited) that forces the use of multiple copies (App. D).
invented entities (1)
  • 10-class Hermitian permutation ansatz for c=4 no independent evidence
    purpose: Compact, symmetry-adapted observable basis that predicts squared negativity from easy or mixed training data.
    Constructed by grouping 100 independent Hermitian operators according to their optimized coefficients; no independent experimental confirmation outside the paper’s numerics.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 47431 in / 2319 out tokens · 24041 ms · 2026-07-12T07:38:34.338376+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum regression tasks for predicting properties of quantum states are commonly addressed using variational quantum algorithms. While variational quantum circuits are highly expressive and allow to achieve reasonable accuracy, training these circuits may demand a considerable amount of time and resources. In this work, we propose an approach of constructing problem-specific quantum regression models with encoding relevant symmetries and regularizing the variance. The proposed method is based on finding the coefficients of the linear combination of suitably chosen observables. Although it requires the knowledge of the symmetries of the problem in question, the method does not involve parameterized quantum circuits, and the training is done efficiently once the observables are measured. We demonstrate this method on two examples: Prediction of the transverse field strength in the Ising model, and quantification of entanglement in bipartite qubit systems. Our approach is accurate and less resource-intensive than conventional variational methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02696 by Andrey Kardashin, Konstantin Antipin, Vladimir V. Palyulin, Yerassyl Balkybek.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Error between the predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Predicted versus true squared negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Left: Predicted squared negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left: Predicted squared negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Representation of Tr(S [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Results of training and testing on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Results of training on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Left: Predicted squared negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Left: Predicted negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Predicted squared negativity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Designations: density matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Diagrammatic representation for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Diagrammatic representation for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. A diagrammatic description of the realignment operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Diagrammatic representation for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Diagrammatic representation for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Diagrammatic representation (first half) for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Diagrammatic representation (second half) for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Diagrammatic representation for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Diagrammatic representation for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Diagrammatic representation for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Diagrammatic representation for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Diagrammatic representation for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Training with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. Training with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. Left: Predicted values of Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. Diagrammatic representation for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28. Diagrammatic solution for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29. Diagrammatic solution for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30. Diagrammatic solution for Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: FIG. 31. Quantum circuit for measuring Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_31.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: FIG. 32. Quantum circuit for measuring Tr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_32.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: FIG. 33. Predicted negativity squared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_33.png] view at source ↗
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: FIG. 34. Predicted negativity squared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_34.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: When trained directly on random mixed states, the PT-moment-based model exhibits noticeably poorer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_33.png] view at source ↗
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: FIG. 35. Predicted negativity squared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_35.png] view at source ↗
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: FIG. 36. Predicted negativity squared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_36.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Schuld, I

    M. Schuld, I. Sinayskiy, and F. Petruccione. An intro- duction to quantum machine learning.Contemporary Physics, 56(2):172–185, 2015

    2015

  2. [2]

    Quantum gen- erative adversarial learning.Physical review letters, 121(4):040502, 2018

    Seth Lloyd and Christian Weedbrook. Quantum gen- erative adversarial learning.Physical review letters, 121(4):040502, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Schuld and N

    M. Schuld and N. Killoran. Quantum machine learn- ing in feature hilbert spaces.Physical Review Letters, 122(4):040504, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Biamonte, P

    J. Biamonte, P. Wittek, N. Pancotti, P. Rebentrost, N. Wiebe, and S. Lloyd. Quantum machine learning. Nature, 549(7671):195–202, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Preskill

    J. Preskill. Quantum computing in the nisq era and be- yond.Quantum, 2:79, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    Marco Cerezo, Andrew Arrasmith, Ryan Babbush, Si- mon C Benjamin, Suguru Endo, Keisuke Fujii, Jarrod R McClean, Kosuke Mitarai, Xiao Yuan, Lukasz Cincio, et al. Variational quantum algorithms.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(9):625–644, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Schuld and F

    M. Schuld and F. Petruccione.Machine Learning with Quantum Computers. Springer, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    Fisher information in noisy intermediate-scale quantum applications.Quantum, 5:539, 2021

    Johannes Jakob Meyer. Fisher information in noisy intermediate-scale quantum applications.Quantum, 5:539, 2021

    2021

  9. [9]

    The theory of the quantum kernel-based binary classifier.Physics Letters A, 384(21):126422, 2020

    Daniel K Park, Carsten Blank, and Francesco Petruc- cione. The theory of the quantum kernel-based binary classifier.Physics Letters A, 384(21):126422, 2020

    2020

  10. [10]

    Generalization in quantum machine learning: A quantum information standpoint.PRX Quantum, 2(4):040321, 2021

    Leonardo Banchi, Jason Pereira, and Stefano Pirandola. Generalization in quantum machine learning: A quantum information standpoint.PRX Quantum, 2(4):040321, 2021

    2021

  11. [11]

    Prediction by linear regression on a quantum computer

    Maria Schuld, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione. Prediction by linear regression on a quantum computer. Physical Review A, 94(2):022342, 2016

    2016

  12. [12]

    A hybrid quantum regression model for the prediction of molecular atomization energies.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2(2):025019, 2021

    Pranath Reddy and Aranya B Bhattacherjee. A hybrid quantum regression model for the prediction of molecular atomization energies.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2(2):025019, 2021

    2021

  13. [13]

    Pa- lyulin, and Konstantin Antipin

    Andrey Kardashin, Yerassyl Balkybek, Vladimir V. Pa- lyulin, and Konstantin Antipin. Predicting properties of quantum systems by regression on a quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Res., 7:013201, Feb 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Universal variational quantum compu- tation.Physical Review A, 103(3):L030401, 2021

    Jacob Biamonte. Universal variational quantum compu- tation.Physical Review A, 103(3):L030401, 2021

    2021

  15. [15]

    Variational quantum linear solver.Quantum, 7:1188, 2023

    Carlos Bravo-Prieto, Ryan LaRose, Marco Cerezo, Yigit Subasi, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Variational quantum linear solver.Quantum, 7:1188, 2023

    2023

  16. [16]

    Variational quantum linear solver.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.05820, 2019

    Carlos Bravo-Prieto, Ryan LaRose, Marco Cerezo, Yigit Subasi, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Variational quantum linear solver.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.05820, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  17. [17]

    Variational algorithms for linear algebra.Science Bulletin, 66(21):2181–2188, 2021

    Xiaosi Xu, Jinzhao Sun, Suguru Endo, Ying Li, Simon C Benjamin, and Xiao Yuan. Variational algorithms for linear algebra.Science Bulletin, 66(21):2181–2188, 2021

    2021

  18. [18]

    A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature Com- munications, 5:4213, 2014

    Alberto Peruzzo, Jarrod McClean, Peter Shadbolt, Man- Hong Yung, Xiao-Qi Zhou, Peter J Love, Al´ an Aspuru- Guzik, and Jeremy L O’brien. A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor.Nature Com- munications, 5:4213, 2014

    2014

  19. [19]

    Lubasch, J

    M. Lubasch, J. Joo, P. Moinier, M. Kiffner, and D. Jaksch. Variational quantum algorithms for nonlin- ear problems.Physical Review A, 101(1):010301, 2020

    2020

  20. [20]

    A variational quantum algorithm for hamiltonian diagonalization.Quantum Science and Technology, 6(4):045009, 2021

    Jinfeng Zeng, Chenfeng Cao, Chao Zhang, Pengxiang Xu, and Bei Zeng. A variational quantum algorithm for hamiltonian diagonalization.Quantum Science and Technology, 6(4):045009, 2021

    2021

  21. [21]

    LaRose, A

    R. LaRose, A. Tikku, ´E. O’Neel-Judy, L. Cincio, and P. J Coles. Variational quantum state diagonalization. npj Quantum Information, 5(1):1–10, 2019

    2019

  22. [22]

    Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of lattice models.Nature, 569(7756):355–360, 2019

    Christian Kokail, Christine Maier, Rick van Bijnen, Tiff Brydges, Manoj K Joshi, Petar Jurcevic, Christine A Muschik, Pietro Silvi, Rainer Blatt, Christian F Roos, et al. Self-verifying variational quantum simulation of lattice models.Nature, 569(7756):355–360, 2019

    2019

  23. [23]

    An adaptive variational algo- rithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum com- puter.Nature communications, 10(1):3007, 2019

    Harper R Grimsley, Sophia E Economou, Edwin Barnes, and Nicholas J Mayhall. An adaptive variational algo- rithm for exact molecular simulations on a quantum com- puter.Nature communications, 10(1):3007, 2019

    2019

  24. [24]

    Barren plateaus in variational quantum com- puting.Nature Reviews Physics, pages 1–16, 2025

    Martin Larocca, Supanut Thanasilp, Samson Wang, Ku- nal Sharma, Jacob Biamonte, Patrick J Coles, Lukasz Cincio, Jarrod R McClean, Zo¨ e Holmes, and Marco Cerezo. Barren plateaus in variational quantum com- puting.Nature Reviews Physics, pages 1–16, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    On barren plateaus and cost function locality in variational quantum algo- rithms.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theo- retical, 54(24):245301, 2021

    AV Uvarov and Jacob D Biamonte. On barren plateaus and cost function locality in variational quantum algo- rithms.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theo- retical, 54(24):245301, 2021

    2021

  26. [26]

    Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum al- gorithms.Nature communications, 12(1):6961, 2021

    Samson Wang, Enrico Fontana, Marco Cerezo, Kunal Sharma, Akira Sone, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Noise-induced barren plateaus in variational quantum al- gorithms.Nature communications, 12(1):6961, 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature communications, 9(1):4812, 2018

    Jarrod R McClean, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N Smelyanskiy, Ryan Babbush, and Hartmut Neven. Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes.Nature communications, 9(1):4812, 2018

    2018

  28. [28]

    Theory of over- parametrization in quantum neural networks.Nature Computational Science, 3(6):542–551, 2023

    Martin Larocca, Nathan Ju, Diego Garc´ ıa-Mart´ ın, Patrick J Coles, and Marco Cerezo. Theory of over- parametrization in quantum neural networks.Nature Computational Science, 3(6):542–551, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient mag- nitudes and barren plateaus.PRX quantum, 3(1):010313, 2022

    Zo¨ e Holmes, Kunal Sharma, Marco Cerezo, and Patrick J Coles. Connecting ansatz expressibility to gradient mag- nitudes and barren plateaus.PRX quantum, 3(1):010313, 2022

    2022

  30. [30]

    Challenges and op- portunities in quantum machine learning.Nature Com- putational Science, 2(9):567–576, 2022

    Marco Cerezo, Guillaume Verdon, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Lukasz Cincio, and Patrick J Coles. Challenges and op- portunities in quantum machine learning.Nature Com- putational Science, 2(9):567–576, 2022

    2022

  31. [31]

    Post- variational quantum neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10560, 2023

    Po-Wei Huang and Patrick Rebentrost. Post- variational quantum neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10560, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Method to identify parent hamiltonians for trial states

    Martin Greiter, Vera Schnells, and Ronny Thomale. Method to identify parent hamiltonians for trial states. Physical Review B, 98(8):081113, 2018

    2018

  33. [33]

    Learn- ing to predict arbitrary quantum processes.PRX Quan- tum, 4(4):040337, 2023

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Sitan Chen, and John Preskill. Learn- ing to predict arbitrary quantum processes.PRX Quan- tum, 4(4):040337, 2023

    2023

  34. [34]

    Reduction of finite sampling noise in quantum neural networks.Quantum, 8:1385, 2024

    David A Kreplin and Marco Roth. Reduction of finite sampling noise in quantum neural networks.Quantum, 8:1385, 2024

    2024

  35. [35]

    Variational quantum eigensolvers by variance min- imization.Chinese Physics B, 31(12):120301, 2022

    Dan-Bo Zhang, Bin-Lin Chen, Zhan-Hao Yuan, and Tao Yin. Variational quantum eigensolvers by variance min- imization.Chinese Physics B, 31(12):120301, 2022. 14

    2022

  36. [36]

    Subtleties in the train- ability of quantum machine learning models.Quantum Machine Intelligence, 5(1):21, 2023

    Supanut Thanasilp, Samson Wang, Nhat Anh Nghiem, Patrick Coles, and Marco Cerezo. Subtleties in the train- ability of quantum machine learning models.Quantum Machine Intelligence, 5(1):21, 2023

    2023

  37. [37]

    Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10):1050– 1057, 2020

    Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, and John Preskill. Predicting many properties of a quantum system from very few measurements.Nature Physics, 16(10):1050– 1057, 2020

    2020

  38. [38]

    Single-copies estimation of entanglement negativity.Physical Review Letters, 125(20):200502, 2020

    You Zhou, Pei Zeng, and Zhenhuan Liu. Single-copies estimation of entanglement negativity.Physical Review Letters, 125(20):200502, 2020

    2020

  39. [39]

    The matrix cookbook.Technical University of Denmark, 7(15):510, 2008

    Kaare Brandt Petersen, Michael Syskind Pedersen, et al. The matrix cookbook.Technical University of Denmark, 7(15):510, 2008

    2008

  40. [40]

    Geometric perspec- tive on quantum parameter estimation.AVS Quantum Science, 2(1), 2020

    Jasminder S Sidhu and Pieter Kok. Geometric perspec- tive on quantum parameter estimation.AVS Quantum Science, 2(1), 2020

    2020

  41. [41]

    A variational toolbox for quantum multi- parameter estimation.npj Quantum Information, 7(1):89, 2021

    Johannes Jakob Meyer, Johannes Borregaard, and Jens Eisert. A variational toolbox for quantum multi- parameter estimation.npj Quantum Information, 7(1):89, 2021

    2021

  42. [42]

    The randomized measurement toolbox.Nature Reviews Physics, 5(1):9–24, 2023

    Andreas Elben, Steven T Flammia, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Richard Kueng, John Preskill, Benoˆ ıt Vermersch, and Pe- ter Zoller. The randomized measurement toolbox.Nature Reviews Physics, 5(1):9–24, 2023

    2023

  43. [43]

    Mixed-state entanglement from lo- cal randomized measurements.Physical Review Letters, 125(20):200501, 2020

    Andreas Elben, Richard Kueng, Hsin-Yuan Huang, Rick van Bijnen, Christian Kokail, Marcello Dalmonte, Pasquale Calabrese, Barbara Kraus, John Preskill, Pe- ter Zoller, et al. Mixed-state entanglement from lo- cal randomized measurements.Physical Review Letters, 125(20):200501, 2020

    2020

  44. [44]

    Importance sampling of randomized measurements for probing entanglement

    Aniket Rath, Rick van Bijnen, Andreas Elben, Peter Zoller, and Benoˆ ıt Vermersch. Importance sampling of randomized measurements for probing entanglement. Physical review letters, 127(20):200503, 2021

    2021

  45. [45]

    Measuring trρn on single copies ofρusing random measurements

    Steven J Van Enk and Carlo WJ Beenakker. Measuring trρn on single copies ofρusing random measurements. Physical review letters, 108(11):110503, 2012

    2012

  46. [46]

    Entanglement phase diagrams from partial transpose moments.Physical Review A, 109(1):012422, 2024

    Jose Carrasco, Matteo Votto, Vittorio Vitale, Christian Kokail, Antoine Neven, Peter Zoller, Benoˆ ıt Vermer- sch, and Barbara Kraus. Entanglement phase diagrams from partial transpose moments.Physical Review A, 109(1):012422, 2024

    2024

  47. [47]

    Statistical correlations between locally ran- domized measurements: A toolbox for probing entangle- ment in many-body quantum states.Physical Review A, 99(5):052323, 2019

    Andreas Elben, Benoıt Vermersch, Christian F Roos, and Peter Zoller. Statistical correlations between locally ran- domized measurements: A toolbox for probing entangle- ment in many-body quantum states.Physical Review A, 99(5):052323, 2019

    2019

  48. [48]

    Probing r´ enyi entan- glement entropy via randomized measurements.Science, 364(6437):260–263, 2019

    Tiff Brydges, Andreas Elben, Petar Jurcevic, Benoˆ ıt Ver- mersch, Christine Maier, Ben P Lanyon, Peter Zoller, Rainer Blatt, and Christian F Roos. Probing r´ enyi entan- glement entropy via randomized measurements.Science, 364(6437):260–263, 2019

    2019

  49. [49]

    Characterizing multipartite entanglement with moments of random correlations.Physical Review Letters, 122(12):120505, 2019

    Andreas Ketterer, Nikolai Wyderka, and Otfried G¨ uhne. Characterizing multipartite entanglement with moments of random correlations.Physical Review Letters, 122(12):120505, 2019

    2019

  50. [50]

    Symmetry-resolved entanglement detection using partial transpose moments.npj Quantum Informa- tion, 7(1):152, 2021

    Antoine Neven, Jose Carrasco, Vittorio Vitale, Christian Kokail, Andreas Elben, Marcello Dalmonte, Pasquale Calabrese, Peter Zoller, Benoit Vermersch, Richard Kueng, et al. Symmetry-resolved entanglement detection using partial transpose moments.npj Quantum Informa- tion, 7(1):152, 2021

    2021

  51. [51]

    Optimal entanglement certification from moments of the partial transpose.Physical review letters, 127(6):060504, 2021

    Xiao-Dong Yu, Satoya Imai, and Otfried G¨ uhne. Optimal entanglement certification from moments of the partial transpose.Physical review letters, 127(6):060504, 2021

    2021

  52. [52]

    Separability criterion for density matrices

    Asher Peres. Separability criterion for density matrices. Physical Review Letters, 77(8):1413, 1996

    1996

  53. [53]

    Machine-learning-assisted many-body entanglement measurement.Physical review letters, 121(15):150503, 2018

    Johnnie Gray, Leonardo Banchi, Abolfazl Bayat, and Sougato Bose. Machine-learning-assisted many-body entanglement measurement.Physical review letters, 121(15):150503, 2018

    2018

  54. [54]

    Directly estimating mixed-state entangle- ment with bell measurement assistance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20696, 2024

    Gong-Chu Li, Lei Chen, Si-Qi Zhang, Xu-Song Hong, You Zhou, Geng Chen, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang- Can Guo. Directly estimating mixed-state entangle- ment with bell measurement assistance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20696, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Local measurement strategies for multi- partite entanglement quantification.Physical Review A, 110(1):012454, 2024

    Luke Coffman, Akshay Seshadri, Graeme Smith, and Ja- cob L Beckey. Local measurement strategies for multi- partite entanglement quantification.Physical Review A, 110(1):012454, 2024

    2024

  56. [56]

    A matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0205017, 2002

    Kai Chen and Ling-An Wu. A matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0205017, 2002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  57. [57]

    Moments based entanglement criteria and mea- sures.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- ical, 57(20):205301, 2024

    Yiding Wang, Tinggui Zhang, Xiaofen Huang, and Shao- Ming Fei. Moments based entanglement criteria and mea- sures.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- ical, 57(20):205301, 2024

    2024

  58. [58]

    Measuring the entan- glement of bipartite pure states.Physical Review A, 61(4):042303, 2000

    JMG Sancho and SF Huelga. Measuring the entan- glement of bipartite pure states.Physical Review A, 61(4):042303, 2000

    2000

  59. [59]

    Tomography is necessary for universal entanglement detection with single-copy ob- servables.Physical review letters, 116(23):230501, 2016

    Dawei Lu, Tao Xin, Nengkun Yu, Zhengfeng Ji, Jianxin Chen, Guilu Long, Jonathan Baugh, Xinhua Peng, Bei Zeng, and Raymond Laflamme. Tomography is necessary for universal entanglement detection with single-copy ob- servables.Physical review letters, 116(23):230501, 2016

    2016

  60. [60]

    Fundamental limitation on the detectability of en- tanglement.Physical Review Letters, 129(23):230503, 2022

    Pengyu Liu, Zhenhuan Liu, Shu Chen, and Xiongfeng Ma. Fundamental limitation on the detectability of en- tanglement.Physical Review Letters, 129(23):230503, 2022

    2022

  61. [61]

    Group-invariant quantum machine learning.PRX quan- tum, 3(3):030341, 2022

    Mart´ ın Larocca, Fr´ ed´ eric Sauvage, Faris M Sbahi, Guil- laume Verdon, Patrick J Coles, and Marco Cerezo. Group-invariant quantum machine learning.PRX quan- tum, 3(3):030341, 2022

    2022

  62. [62]

    Statistical complexity of quantum learning.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 8(12):2300311, 2025

    Leonardo Banchi, Jason Luke Pereira, Sharu Theresa Jose, and Osvaldo Simeone. Statistical complexity of quantum learning.Advanced Quantum Technologies, 8(12):2300311, 2025

    2025

  63. [63]

    Computable mea- sure of entanglement.Physical Review A, 65(3):032314, 2002

    Guifr´ e Vidal and Reinhard F Werner. Computable mea- sure of entanglement.Physical Review A, 65(3):032314, 2002

    2002

  64. [64]

    Observable estimation of entangle- ment for arbitrary finite-dimensional mixed states.Phys

    Cheng-Jie Zhang, Yan-Xiao Gong, Yong-Sheng Zhang, and Guang-Can Guo. Observable estimation of entangle- ment for arbitrary finite-dimensional mixed states.Phys. Rev. A, 78:042308, Oct 2008

    2008

  65. [65]

    Par- tial transposition as a direct link between concurrence and negativity.Phys

    Christopher Eltschka, G´ eza T´ oth, and Jens Siewert. Par- tial transposition as a direct link between concurrence and negativity.Phys. Rev. A, 91:032327, Mar 2015

    2015

  66. [66]

    Observable entanglement measure for mixed quantum states.Phys

    Florian Mintert and Andreas Buchleitner. Observable entanglement measure for mixed quantum states.Phys. Rev. Lett., 98:140505, Apr 2007

    2007

  67. [67]

    Theory for equivariant quan- tum neural networks.PRX Quantum, 5(2):020328, 2024

    Quynh T Nguyen, Louis Schatzki, Paolo Braccia, Michael Ragone, Patrick J Coles, Frederic Sauvage, Martin Larocca, and Marco Cerezo. Theory for equivariant quan- tum neural networks.PRX Quantum, 5(2):020328, 2024

    2024

  68. [68]

    Exploiting symmetry in vari- ational quantum machine learning.PRX Quantum, 4(1):010328, 2023

    Johannes Jakob Meyer, Marian Mularski, Elies Gil- Fuster, Antonio Anna Mele, Francesco Arzani, Alissa 15 Wilms, and Jens Eisert. Exploiting symmetry in vari- ational quantum machine learning.PRX Quantum, 4(1):010328, 2023

    2023

  69. [69]

    Entanglement universality of two-qubit x-states.Annals of Physics, 351:79–103, 2014

    Paulo EMF Mendon¸ ca, Marcelo A Marchiolli, and Di´ ogenes Galetti. Entanglement universality of two-qubit x-states.Annals of Physics, 351:79–103, 2014

    2014

  70. [70]

    Entanglement in the stabilizer formalism.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0406168, 2004

    David Fattal, Toby S Cubitt, Yoshihisa Yamamoto, Sergey Bravyi, and Isaac L Chuang. Entanglement in the stabilizer formalism.arXiv preprint quant-ph/0406168, 2004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  71. [71]

    Witness expansion: A unified framework for analytical and measurable mixed-state resource de- tection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.27105, 2026

    Yifan Tang, Chengkai Zhu, Yuzhen Zhang, Jens Eisert, Zi-Wen Liu, Ingo Roth, Otfried G¨ uhne, Xin Wang, and Zhenhuan Liu. Witness expansion: A unified framework for analytical and measurable mixed-state resource de- tection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.27105, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Code for ”quantum regression with a problem-specific ansatz”.https://github.com/yerabalkybek/ Quantum-regression-with-a-problem-specific-ansatz/ tree/main, 2026

    Yerassyl Balkybek and Andrey Kardashin. Code for ”quantum regression with a problem-specific ansatz”.https://github.com/yerabalkybek/ Quantum-regression-with-a-problem-specific-ansatz/ tree/main, 2026

    2026

  73. [73]

    Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial.Quan- tum, 8:1340, 2024

    Antonio Anna Mele. Introduction to haar measure tools in quantum information: A beginner’s tutorial.Quan- tum, 8:1340, 2024

    2024

  74. [74]

    Reduction cri- terion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols.Phys

    Micha l Horodecki and Pawe l Horodecki. Reduction cri- terion of separability and limits for a class of distillation protocols.Phys. Rev. A, 59:4206–4216, Jun 1999

    1999

  75. [75]

    A matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement.Quantum Inf

    Kai Chen and Ling-An Wu. A matrix realignment method for recognizing entanglement.Quantum Inf. Comput., 3(3):193–202, 2003

    2003

  76. [76]

    Some properties of the computable cross-norm criterion for separability.Phys

    Oliver Rudolph. Some properties of the computable cross-norm criterion for separability.Phys. Rev. A, 67:032312, 2003

    2003

  77. [77]

    Direct estimations of linear and nonlinear func- tionals of a quantum state.Physical review letters, 88(21):217901, 2002

    Artur K Ekert, Carolina Moura Alves, Daniel KL Oi, Micha l Horodecki, Pawe l Horodecki, and Leong Chuan Kwek. Direct estimations of linear and nonlinear func- tionals of a quantum state.Physical review letters, 88(21):217901, 2002. Appendix A: Proof of the positive semi-definiteness of the Hessian Matrix In this section, we show thatS Σ in Eq. (13) is pos...

    2002

  78. [78]

    Haar-integration framework for regression with variance regularization for bipartite pure qudit states We consider a bipartite pure qudit system|ψ⟩ α,UA ,UB ∈ H A ⊗ HB of dimensiond×d, |ψ⟩α,UA ,UB = (UA ⊗U B) dX i=1 p λi |iAiB⟩,(E1) whereP i λi = 1. Further we consider two copies of|ψ⟩ α,UA ,UB in a density matrix form ofρ α,UA UB =|ψ⟩ ⟨ψ|α,UA ,UB ρ⊗2 α,U...

  79. [79]

    Entanglement negativity quantification In this section, we present theoretical and numerical results for the quantification of entanglement in both qubit- qubit and qudit-qudit systems, specifically focusing on negativity or tangle as a measure for pure and mixed states. Following the methodology outlined in Section III, we solve the regression problem us...

  80. [80]

    As we have discussed in Appendix E 2 a, a swap operator S has eigenvalues +1 (symmetric subspace) and−1 (antisymmetric subspace)

    Measuring Hermitian permutation operations Let us consider the measurement of Tr SA0A1SA2A3SB0B2SB1B3 ρ⊗4 . As we have discussed in Appendix E 2 a, a swap operator S has eigenvalues +1 (symmetric subspace) and−1 (antisymmetric subspace). Denoting the corresponding eigenprojectors by P sym and Pasym, we have SP sym = Psym,(J1) S Pasym =−P asym .(J2) 34 0.2...

    1910

Showing first 80 references.